Letters to Arthur Greeves

From The Essential C. S. Lewis, pp. 51-56:

In the last letter to Arthur, Jack shares how he came to find Christianity reasonable (before he came to believe in it himself). He apparently was having difficulty believing in the story because he could not grasp the story enough to understand it. And "you can't believe a thing while you are ignorant what the thing is." He asks a question that I have asked many times: "What I couldn't see was how the life and death of Someone Else (whoever he was) 2000 years ago could help us here and now--except in so far as his example helped us." Good question!

He finds his answer by learning to see the Christ story as a myth. Not a myth in the sense that it is not true, but a myth in the style of writing, and in the events that transpired. I'm not sure I come to the same conclusion he does, but that's ok. At the end of his last letter, after explaining his mythic view of Christianity, he states, "I am ... nearly certain that it really happened."

Perelandra

This book made excellent reading. I rarely wanted to put the book down during or in between chapters. The parallels Lewis pulls from real-life into his fiction are many and impressive. The un-man's temptation patterns are very true-to-life.

Likewise, the pattern Maleldil used in instructing Ransom is very much like the way God communicates with us:

1. God waits for us to be humble, when we are willing to accept anything
2. He inspires us in subtle ways, often in a way that leaves us free to second guess whether it was actually inspiration.
3. He leaves us free to decide whether to act, and then encourages us when we decide to do so.
   

On the Relation of the Physical and the Spiritual

In this essay, Lewis addresses the question of whether certain events described in the Bible actually happened, were figurative, or were both. He suggests that it is very possible that something that happened literally also had symbolic meaning. That would mean the opposite is also true. A very plausible thought. I believe it.

On recent essays

On Myth and Myth Became Fact was made more meaningful to me by the class discussion we had this afternoon. I have always considered myth to mean an untrue story. A tale, fable, yarn, etc. Lewis clearly believes that a myth is more than just some generic false story. First, it can be true. Second, it must affect the reader in a profound, universal way.

Learning in War Time is a very relevant essay, even in our time. We are not at war, but I have often been put in the situation where I had to justify why I could manage to continue my daily life even in severe crisis. This gives a very good set of answers to that problem. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I also wonder at times, "Is it worth it to invest in life insurance when the second coming could happen before I can cash it in?" This might even apply to that question.

The Few and the Many clearly reveal Lewis' attitude toward reading, and explains why his life revolved around it. I find myself on the "many" side of his discussion, being one of the many who reads when there is little else to do. I enjoy reading, but more often than not I enjoy other activities more. Rarely do I put a book down for the 20th or 30th time, having absorbed into my soul the content of any book. I am happy for those who find reading so fulfilling though.

On the Reading of Old Books contains an excellent argument for reading old books in order to keep a steady course amidst the ever changing winds of doctrine of our day. They Asked for a Paper (De Descriptione Temporum) seems to work with the aforementioned essay as it seems to defend the position of antique peoples and ideas. Lewis asks the question, "Why does 'latest' in advertisements mean 'best'?" Advertisement here I think can mean more than just trying to sell things for profit. It may also apply to persuasive ideas. Finally, Epilogue to An Experiment in Criticism seems also to fit this concept somewhat. It doesn't target old books so much as just reading in general. I don't know what the content of the essay has to do with "criticism", but the essay promotes the idea of seeing the world through hundreds of eyes rather than just your own. From all three of these articles, Lewis clearly believes it profitable and apparently has time to read hundreds or thousands of books, and many of them 20 or 30 times over.

In Christianity and Literature Lewis took two pages to say what he was not going to say for the rest of the essay. Sheesh. Although he uses Greek words fairly frequently in this essay, I did not find it especially difficult to understand. I did feel like I was wading through some fancy phrasings here and there though. He seems to be saying that all creativity comes from God. That we should not attempt to be or believe that we can be creative in and of ourselves. I disbelieve that. I believe God certainly can and does inspire us, but I believe we have intelligence of our own as well, and that God wants us to use it.

Surprised by Joy

A more interesting book. Definitely easier to follow that some of Lewis' writings. Toward the end of chapter 5, I found his description of the union between Animal Land and India most puzzling. He had all the detail of real-life history, so that I had to keep reminding myself that it was all in his and his brother's imagination. How a couple of boys in their teens could find such an interest in an imaginary land of such detail is beyond me.

I could totally relate to the Great Knock in chapter 9. I was that kind of person as a new missionary, and still am, to a lesser degree, now. My personality that insisted that everyone ought and should want to be clarified and corrected was one that I had grown up with. My brothers were all like that, and we got along without knowing what was unusual about it, and oblivious to how the rest of the world seems to see it as controversial. I wish I could have shown my companions this chapter.

Afterword to Pilgrim's Regress

This seems to me, unfortunately, to fit into the category of Lewis' heavier writings that I cannot even follow. So many times he refers to British (I think) culture-specific things that I don't understand. Then he will just use some marvelous and smooth prose that I can't understand that either.

For example, he talks about how there are two extremes in so many areas. Then he consider theology, and how even that has two extremes. But when he describes them, he calls one extreme "driving out the bondmaid's son" and the other "quench not the smoking flax." Now what in the world do those two phrases mean? He does explain it more in the following sentences, but I can't understand them either. And this is just a sample. The whole essay is like this. I wish I could understand it.